2007 bhbia brand equity hargroves winters intro 2011

1,489 views
1,439 views

Published on

Slides used in pharmaceutical brand equity paper presented at BHBIA 2007, by Tom Hargroves, Novartis and Peter Winters, BHI

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,489
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
21
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2007 bhbia brand equity hargroves winters intro 2011

  1. 1. Noah Built the Ark Before the Flood; Can We Apply His Climatic Prescience to Quantitative Brand Equity Measurement?<br />Tom Hargroves<br />Peter Winters<br />BHBIA Conference, April 2007<br />
  2. 2. About our BHBIA 2007 Brand Equity paper<br />Within the pharmaceutical industry, there is ongoing interest in how to measure the impact of physician emotions in driving prescribing, and there are different approaches to do this. Coincidentally, within the past couple of weeks I have met with Brian Attig of Psyma, and Monica Marantz, of Ipsos Health who have also both prepared presentations in this area<br /><ul><li> Brian’s paper, prepared with Alison Clabaugh, is called “Quantifying Emotional Driver’s in Physician Attitudes & Behaviours” and presented at PBIRG 2009. It is available to view online as an on-demand webinar.
  3. 3. Monica’s paper, with John Hallward, is called “The Power of Emotions in Driving Physician Prescribing Behavior”, and presented at the Canadian Pharma Market Research Conference 2011.</li></ul>These two meetings prompted me to make available online the charts for a paper I prepared with Tom Hargroves of Novartis for the BHBIA conference, 2007 . The conference<br />had a climate change theme and went by the title “Noah Built the Ark Before the Flood,<br />Can We Apply His Climatic Prescience to Quantitative Brand Equity Measurement?”<br />Peter Winters, April 2011<br />
  4. 4. The main story to our BHBIA 2007 paper<br />Challenge: <br />“I had been tasked with quantitatively measuring the brand equity of one of the companies biggest brands and its competitors. Previous quantitative research had shown there to be no differences between the brands in the market, however, intuitively and in qualitative research, there are clear differences.” ~ Tom Hargroves, Senior Market Analyst, Novartis<br />Solution:<br />“It is possible to measure how one brand differentiates from another, but the associations, emotions and values that a respondent has to a brand is best understood within the context of their specific relationship with that brand. It is the number and strength of these relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical brands, which we believe, can be considered as a useful measure of brand equity.” ~ Peter Winters, MD, BHI Validation<br />Conclusion:<br />“Although there is still more work to be done in developing this methodology, we are confident that it is an accurate way to measure brand equity, and the results have been very useful to the marketing team” ~ Tom Hargroves, Senior Market Analyst, Novartis<br />
  5. 5. Theoretical inspirations to our BHBIA 2007 paper<br />Brands as Relationships<br />“It should be remembered that, when researching brands, it is extremely important to make a distinction between the users and non-users of a brand” <br />~ GiepFranzen, Margot Bouwman, The Mental World of Brands, (2001) Final Reflections, p.437<br />“Brand-Feeling seems to reflect the long-term brand-person relationship that has been built up historically. … These feelings encapsulates the relationship and determine brand choice. This is what ultimately translates into brand equity. Brand-Feeling emerges as a large and stable brand resource that is, in general, only slowly influenced by advertising and other day-to-day marketing activities.” <br />~ Spike Cramphorn, How to Use Advertising to Build Brands: In Search of the Philosopher’s Stone, Add+Impact International, IJMR, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2006<br />Universal Needs Map<br />The theory of the Universal Needs Map comes from ‘Brands Laid Bare’, (2005) by Kevin Ford (Ipsos)<br />
  6. 6. And now to the charts we used at BHBIA 2007 …<br />
  7. 7. Noah Built the Ark Before the Flood; Can We Apply His Climatic Prescience to Quantitative Brand Equity Measurement?<br />Tom Hargroves<br />Peter Winters<br />BHBIA Conference, April 2007<br />
  8. 8. In a Nutshell <br />Situation: <br />Previous quantitative and qualitative research did not agree in terms of brand differentiation / equity for ARB/AIIA drugs<br />Challenge:<br />How to track brand equity, regularly, cost effectively, and accurately on the internet<br />Solution:<br />Innovative methodology using qualitative-style enabling techniques and brand-sensitive analysis<br />
  9. 9. Branding: Past, Present and Future<br />Nowadays consumers are bombarded with brands<br />Importance of being a memorable and well differentiated brand is paramount<br /> “In the twenty-first century, branding ultimately will be the only unique differentiator between companies. Brand equity is now a key asset”<br />
  10. 10. Brand Equity…..it’s a Relationship <br />“the sum total of learning's about the brand by all stakeholders…It includes all that people feel and think about the brand as a result of direct experience, word of mouth and moments-of-truth with the brand and the brand marketing activities” (Tim Ambler, 2000) <br />Positive Brand equity drives profit through; <br />- Commanding price premium<br /> - Allowing for brand extensions<br /> - Protection from generic competition<br /> - Obtaining and retaining loyal customers <br />
  11. 11. The Power of the Brand….<br />
  12. 12. NHS Increasingly Cost-Sensitive <br />“Angiotensin-II receptor antagonists (AIIRAs) are newer, more expensive drugs similar in action to the older angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) – the majority of which are now off patent and available as cheaper generic formulations. NICE guidance states that AIIRAs should only be used for patients intolerant of ACEIs” (DoH)<br />“we identified over £500 million of expenditure in 2005 that could have been put to more cost effective uses.” <br />(OFT report)<br />
  13. 13. High Global Patent Losses ($72bn 2007-2010)<br />Value of products at risk 2006-2010<br />$22bn<br />$23bn<br />$19bn<br />$16bn<br />$15bn<br />Source: IMS MIDAS, MAT Dec 2005 New Market Segmentation Feature<br />
  14. 14. Fewer Global NCEs, so Maximising In-Line Brands and New Launches is a Priority <br />Source: MI Team Analysis October 2006<br />
  15. 15. The Climate is Getting Hotter<br />The importance of strong brand equity is acutely important and set to become even more important because;<br /><ul><li>Pharmaceutical drugs are competing in an ever increasingly cost conscious NHS
  16. 16. Strong brand equity can help obtain and retain loyal customers
  17. 17. Protecting off patent business is worthwhile
  18. 18. Declining number of NCE’s being brought to market</li></li></ul><li>The Role of Neuroscience, or“People aren’t Computers”<br />
  19. 19. Going Beyond Words…<br />New Enabling TechniquesQ. Please select an Archetypal role that works as a metaphor for product X?<br />Traditional Brand Equity Research:Q. Please choose the characteristic that best describes product X?Old-fashionedCapableEffectiveNothing newBoringPractical<br />Base: All respondents, 53<br />Carer<br />
  20. 20. Relevance of Metaphors in ARB/AIIA Market<br /> Core values<br />Healer<br />Carer<br />Key:<br />Core values – 65%+<br />Differentiating values – 20-64%<br />Irrelevant values – under 20%<br />% of all GPs who mention each archetypes with respect to Amias, Aprovel, Cozaar and/or Diovan<br />Base: All respondents, 53<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  21. 21. Relevance of Metaphors in ARB/AIIA Market<br />Caretaker<br />Fireman<br />Runner<br />Manager<br />Organiser <br />Policeman<br />Scientist<br />Prophet / Visionary<br />Statistician<br />Teacher<br />Strongman<br />Knight<br />Differentiating values<br /> Core values<br />Healer<br />Carer<br />Key:<br />Core values – 65%+<br />Differentiating values – 20-64%<br />Irrelevant values – under 20%<br />% of all GPs who mention each archetypes with respect to Amias, Aprovel, Cozaar and/or Diovan<br />Base: All respondents, 53<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  22. 22. Relevance of Metaphors in ARB/AIIA Market<br />Caretaker<br />Fireman<br />Runner<br />Manager<br />Organiser <br />Policeman<br />Scientist<br />Truck Driver<br />Exterminator<br />Prophet / Visionary<br />Statistician<br />Teacher<br />Strongman<br />Knight<br />Differentiating values<br />Irrelevant values<br />Irrelevant values<br /> Core values<br />Healer<br />Carer<br />Key:<br />Core values – 65%+<br />Differentiating values – 20-64%<br />Irrelevant values – under 20%<br />% of all GPs who mention each archetypes with respect to Amias, Aprovel, Cozaar and/or Diovan<br />Base: All respondents, 53<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  23. 23. Brand-Experience Leads to More Emotionally Relevant Role for a Brand <br />Drug Z<br />Drug Y<br />Drug X<br />Drug W<br />Attached <br />(26)<br />Attached <br />(27)<br />Attached <br />(29)<br />Attached <br />(17)<br />Not attached <br />(27)<br />Not attached <br />(26)<br />Not attached <br />(24)<br />Not attached <br />(36)<br />31%<br />19%<br />30%<br />19%<br />48%<br />13%<br />65%<br />42%<br />Carer<br />38%<br />19%<br />33%<br />15%<br />41%<br />33%<br />41%<br />31%<br />Healer<br />13%<br />8%<br />13%<br />11%<br />12%<br />10%<br />11%<br />9%<br />Average of other archetypes<br />Definition:<br />“Attached” are those who use a drug, and perceive that it has (at least) real benefits for some of their patients<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  24. 24. Brand Rooms<br />Paradise<br />Unclear / grey<br />Wood-panelling<br />Source : Novartis ARB study 2006<br />
  25. 25. Drug N<br />Drug M<br />Drug L<br />Attached <br />(32)<br />Attached <br />(46)<br />Attached <br />(31)<br />Not attached <br />(88)<br />Not attached <br />(74)<br />Not attached <br />(89)<br />0%<br />11%<br />0%<br />25%<br />0%<br />24%<br />Unclear and Grey<br />39%<br />32%<br />52%<br />39%<br />38%<br />23%<br />Wood panelling, fireplace, traditional<br />20%<br />7%<br />23%<br />3%<br />25%<br />7%<br />Paradise, butterflies, waterfall<br />An Unclear/Grey Brand Room is All About the GP’s Relationship (or lack of!) with the Brand <br />Definition:<br />“Attached” are those who use a drug regularly or most often<br />Source : Novartis ARB study 2006<br />
  26. 26. Correspondence Analysis amongst those Attached to each Brand: Universal Needs Map<br />Curiosity<br />Ideals<br />Liberty<br />Harmony<br />Excitement<br />Self-<br />Expression<br />Love<br />Challenge<br />Closeness<br />Structure<br />Stability<br />Practicality<br />Base sizes: Attached to<br />each drug (sample from 17 to 29)<br />Definition:<br />“Attached” are those who use a drug, and perceive that it has (at least) real benefits for some of their patients<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  27. 27. Correspondence Analysis amongst those Attached to each Brand: Universal Needs Map<br />Curiosity<br />Ideals<br />Liberty<br />Harmony<br />Excitement<br />Self-<br />Expression<br />Love<br />Challenge<br />Closeness<br />Structure<br />Stability<br />Practicality<br />Base sizes: Attached to<br />each drug (sample from 17 to 29)<br />Definition:<br />“Attached” are those who use a drug, and perceive that it has (at least) real benefits for some of their patients<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  28. 28. Majority of GPs are in Relationships with ARB/AIIAs<br />Base: All Respondents (53) <br />Definition:<br />“Attached” are those who use a drug, and perceive that it has (at least) real benefits for some of their patients<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  29. 29. <ul><li> Married Attached to you (& maybe one other)
  30. 30. Polygamous Attached to you & many others
  31. 31. A bit on the side Attached to others & uses you
  32. 32. Casual Not attached to any & uses you
  33. 33. No relationship Non-user of your brand</li></ul>GP Relationship with your Brand And howstrong is that relationship?<br />Definition:<br />“Attached” are those who use a drug, and perceive that it has (at least) real benefits for some of their patients<br />
  34. 34. Drug HSegmentation & Strength of Brand-Feeling<br />Brand-Feeling<br />Mean score<br />of how much<br />would miss (1 to 7)<br />5.9<br />1.7<br />4.7<br />3.2<br />2.7<br />Attached to other ARB, 26%<br />User of other ARB, 4%<br />Celebate, 0%<br />Base: All Respondents (53) <br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />
  35. 35. Brand Equity: Some marriages are stronger than others ..<br />Drug I<br />Drug H<br />Drug J<br />Brand-Feeling <br />(mean score of how much would miss amongst those married to each brand)<br />Drug K<br />Increased Brand Equity<br />Key Target Penetration (% married to your brand)<br />Base sizes: Married to ..<br />Drug H (7)<br />Drug I (11)<br />Drug J (9)<br />Drug K (8)<br />Source : BHI ARB study 2006<br />Despite small sample sizes, there is a statistically significant difference between Drug K and Drug I in terms of Brand-Feeling (and at 90% confidence between Drug K and Drug H, and Drug K and Drug J)<br />
  36. 36. Main Take-Away Points <br /> Measuring brand equity is about measuring the relationships your target audience has with your brand<br /> Understanding the associations, emotions and values of a respondent to your brand is best understood in the context of their specific relationship with your brand<br /> Strong relationships have momentum; measuring these relationships can help us forecast, and manage, the future<br />
  37. 37. Answering the Question! <br />Noah Built the Ark Before the Flood; Can We Apply His Climatic Prescience to Quantitative Brand Equity Measurement?<br />Brand Equity Measurement Can Give Us A Glimpse of The Future & Building Strong Brands Can Help Us Ride The Waves<br />
  38. 38. Coincidence?<br />
  39. 39. Coincidence?<br />
  40. 40. Coincidence?<br />

×